"You don't think, therefore you're not"?

Now that's a Zen Cohen...

And there's that damnable mind/body false dichotomy again.

OJ - Have you read David James Duncan's "The Brothers K"? Baseball as Zen. Ichiro (my partner in pantheism) would approve. I also recommend Duncan's collection of short stories "River Teeth", which includes "The Mickey Mantle Koan".

The notion that liberty cannot include the ability to decide under what circumstances one desires to continue living is vile.

After all, we afford Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists the leeway to deny all kinds of life-extending medical care.

Why not everyone else?

ghost:

River Why is fine. Brothers K sucked.

Jeff:

We do. That question isn't implicated here.

Try the short stories in "River Teeth" ... some of them are better than "The River Why". "The Mickey Mantle Koan", as I recall, is a true story about the death of Duncan's brother.

Terri is one of millions of victims of the belief that reason trumps faith. Thanks a million modern philosophy. Is there a more ironic name for a literary period than "the Enlightenment"?

ghost:

Thanks. Added it to my sadly extensive Wish List.

Nevermind. After reading this I took it off:

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/03-1om/Duncan.html

Jeff: [T]hat liberty cannot include the ability to decide under what circumstances one desires to continue living is vile. That's way too broad. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

We try to revive suicides because experience teaches us that many attempts are intended to fail and that even people who are serious about it, if revived, end up glad to have been saved. We do allow people to choose to forego extraordinary medical procedures, or even food and water if they are in a persistent vegetative state.

In the Schiavo case, if Terri had left clear written instructions, there wouldn't be any issue. If her husband and parents agreed, there wouldn't be any issue. Given that they don't agree and especially, though not necessarily, because there is some dispute at to whether she is even in a persistent vegetative state, we have to make a decision for her. Choosing life when in doubt seems eminently reasonable.

Didn't read the entire Orion thing, but if I ignored all art whose creators are far to my political left, I'd miss a lot of great art.
My musical tastes, for example, encompass a huge swath of lefties ... as do yours.

Pop music, yes. Not classical, art, literature, or movies.

Please tell me OJ isn't so superhumanly brilliant that he read that whole friggin' essay in three minutes.

OJ:

You liked Asimov's famous trilogy, didn't you?

Matt:

"[I]t strikes me that the epic scope as utilized by Asimov presents a political/philosophical problem. Asimov posited a future science of psychohistory, a discipline which would bring scientific cause and effect certainty to the field of human affairs. The Trilogy traces the fall and reemergence of a Galactic Empire with the entire process having been predicted by and, to some extent guided by, Hari Seldon, the Founder of Psychohistory. This premise manages to combine two of the worst ideas that human's have ever had--first, that history is deterministic and follows some kind of iron clad pattern; second, that there is any merit to psychology, particularly as a predictive tool when applied to large populations over a lengthy period of time.

The whole thing is sort of creepy in so far as it dismisses free will and the impact of ideas and individuals on man's development. The quest for discernible patterns and laws in human existence is nothing new, most religions are predicated on the revelation of such hidden patterns. And it is natural for scientists to be attracted to the idea that there are certain universal laws that will eventually explain our behavior, everything from why we love or why we kill to why I just typed the letter r. But I for one, do not believe that our lives are predetermined. In fact, I find such an idea pretty bleak and antihuman.

I still recommend the series, particularly in light of the influence it has had on the genre and for the massive scope of Asimov's vision, but, for me at least, the Freudian & Hegelian overtones are a little bit off-putting."

David:

"if Terri had left clear written instructions, there wouldn't be any issue."

Sure, families never feud or litigate if there is a written will. :-)

Actually, all this talk about living wills has an black humour side. Everyone is careful to say that they should record the deponent's "wishes", but it's really a joke, as we all know more or less what they are supposed to say. I'm bitter this week and therefore hope there is at least one old curmudgeon out there with the courage to write one that says he is to be kept alive in the most hopeless cases no matter how long, painful or degrading and that all the family wealth and as much public money as his family can extort is to be dedicated to that cause.

Jeff;

I can understand those who are focusing on her medical condition and raising difficult questions about endless care in hopeless circumstances. Appalled as I am about what most of them are saying this week, it's a genuine issue and a radical adherence to my position takes me places I'm not comfortable with. But those who are zeroing in on her so-called wishes, I can't take seriously any more. It's like the abortion advocate who says no fetus would wish to be born unwanted. It's very North American to make a tortured effort to define philosophically any cause in terms of personal freedom and choice, but it's just ridiculous here. The Euros would see through this is an instant and, this time, they'd be right. We would laugh at anyone who tried to claim her stamp collection on the basis that twenty years ago she told the family he should have it, but all the modern Patrick Henry's have decided such is good enough to ordain her death.

Please, Jeff, if you think her life is not worth living, go with it, but no more nonsense about her wishes or how we are just respecting her freedom of choice, I beg you. You are too bright for that.

Okay, so Asimov's an exception...but if the simplified Hegelianism of his book bothers you, why your enthusiasm for Fukuyama's famous thesis?

OJ:

Oh, and you didn't, uh, actually read that whole thing in three minutes, did you?

Matt:

What person of any mental balance can contiunue past this : "[A]s the semester unfolds and we listen to President Bush and his various goaders and backers wage a rhetorical war on Iraq and prepare an increasingly vague national "we" to lay waste to Saddam Hussein, the mere teaching of creative writing has come to feel, for the first time in my life, like a positively dissident line of work."

Hmmm.

I agree with Orrin that the right to kill (the innocent) is vile. That's what I hate about religion.

Orrin, on the other hand, has often defended the utility and morality of killing the innocent as long as it advances the tyranny of religion.

Except they weren't innocent. We both enjoy the killing of the enemies of our society. You become positively tumescent at talk of WWII.

OJ:

Yeah, he's a professional writer..."mental balance" is inapplicable.

The comment directly above that one was meant for you, in case you missed it.

Peter: I defer to your superior knowledge and experience, but I would expect that those families most likely to fight over the will are least likely to fight over the living will.

Peter:

Does the sanctity of marriage mean anything?

Jeff:

"sanctity" good one!

OJ:

Sorry, that was a question.

Mr. Schiavo was, and is, married to Terri. There are attendant legal consequences.

Do they mean anything?

Jeff:

Now this is interesting. On the question of what her wishes were, it matters nothing to you that she didn't have a written will or leave written instructions or do anything remotely legal to record them. Any old casual hearsay she is said to have muttered when she was twenty will do for you. Musn't stand on formality or be unduly legalistic here.

But on the question of who should decide, you are suddenly Mr. legal formality and sanctity of marriage. Do you know a lot of people who are warm to the idea that their spouses who have left them to start other families should continue to have a major involvement in their lives because, after all, marriage is sacred? Do you assume Terri would have "wished" Michael to continue his role in those circumstances? Is that a tough one for you?

Jeff:

Yes. They mean he can't kill her just because she's inconvenient.

Peter:

On the question of what her wishes were, I completely grant there is only one person who might know, and he could be lying.

(Andrew Sullivan provides some background information I hadn't heard--including the role of Terri's parents in Mr. Schiavo's new family...)

More importantly, though, I made absolutely no statements. Rather, I asked a serious question. One which you are most eminently qualified to answer.

There are attendant legal consequences to marriage. Do they include the ability to make such a decision in the absence of other information?

You use the word "circumstances." Those circumstances included Mr. Schiavo's serious efforts for seven years to alleviate her condition.

The marriage vow contains the words "... til death do us part."

If the conclusion becomes inescapable that what the body Terri was in fact irretrievably gone, then what effect does that "circumstance" have on the marriage vow?

The vow is not meant to be read as a suggestion that murder is an acceptable out.

"You use the word "circumstances." ..."The marriage vow contains the words "... til death do us part."

Jeff, please stop now. You know what you wanted and you won. She will die.

Peter:

Sadly, it's not about Michael Schiavo getting to kill his wife.

Peter:

Normally, I don't expect tirades from you.

I have noted that many here have baselessly demonized Mr. Schiavo, while simply avoiding the issues at stake.

For some, ceasing an invasive nourishment procedure is murder, but doing the same thing with non-invasive ventilator is not. If there was ever a case of distinction without difference, that is it.

For you, apparently, Mr. Schiavo married Terri's corporeal form, and the fact that what made that body Terri has been long and irretrievably gone is irrelevant.

For yet others, the whole issue revolves around the absence of a living will, which yet other parties insist should be ignored.

If the roles were reversed, with Terri's parents arguing for removal, but Mr. Schiavo winning the court cases to keep it in place because he asserted that was her intent, I would find that outcome very bit as much of a "win."

I thought I posed some reasonably serious questions above, absent polemics.

I am disappointed you attacked what wasn't there, rather than discuss what was.

Jeff:

Yes, for you it comes down to whose will triumphs with no concern for the morality at issue. Hard to discuss anything sensibly with those who have no basis for considering it.

Jeff:

1. We do not marry minds or bodies. We are each one single entity, fully mind and fully body.

2. Michaal Schiavo, though he has pushed for his wife's death, is not the decision maker here. The courts are, basing their decision that Terri would want to die on, among other things, his testimony. Having said that, and without casting aspersions, his testimony is suspect for obvious reasons.

3. I do believe that a feeding tube is different from a ventilator because, among many other things, of the symbolism of denying the weakest among us food and water and because of the long drawn out death that starvation entails. This is an obviously slippery slope, where we are already seeing the argument that it would be more humane to euthanize Terri.

4. Terri apparently still has a swallow reflex and perhaps could be spoon fed. Michael has refused to allow the attempt. If she could be spoon fed, then there is absolutely no difference between this case and the killing of any person who's life, we conclude, "is not worth living", including the severely retarded and the severely disabled. As bad as this would be, it is predictably human that the definition of a life not worth living would constantly expand to encompass new facts just outside the old boundaries.

5. We are seeing this exact expansion in this case with the insistence of many of those who support the decision to kill Terri in describing her as "brain dead." Brain death is a defined term and Terri is clearly not within the definition. Brain death is death, and no one's permission would be needed to disconnect the machinery and lay her to rest. Knowingly or not, describing her as brain death is an attempt to put everyone in her condition (by some reports, 30000 Americans) in danger of being declared dead.

David:

1. That is very subjective. One could just as easily maintain the position that human existence is a meaningless concept absent a human mind inhabiting that body, and to suggest otherwise is merely to fetishize a pulse rate.

2. So far as I can tell, the courts are deciding only who is best positioned to know what Terri's intent under these circumstances, since she is no longer capable of voicing, or even forming, intent. The courts have, again so far as I can tell, based their reasoning on existing law--within a marriage, guardianship goes to the spouse. So whether his testimony is suspect (I think it only becomes that way through demonizing him. Did you read Andrew Sullivan's article? Unless you are going to accuse Mr. Sullivan of being a liar, then you must at accept there is a real possibility Mr. Schiavo is acting to carry out Terri's wishes. Demonizing him, as so many have, is a thoroughly pointless exercise that only serves to avoid confronting one's entering arguments.)

3. I'm sorry, but you lost me completely there. Air is no less nourishment than food and water. And far less invasive--the tube requires a surgical procedure to create an ongoing, unnatural opening into the body. A ventilator is neither. Drawing that line is purely arbitrary. If that works for you, fine. But others may well find your reasoning unpersuasive.

4. Dr. Judd would be the expert opinion here, but I bet it is certain Terri would quickly contract pneumonia if fed by mouth. Pope John Paul II has a feeding tube because his Parkinson's disease makes swallowing sufficiently chancy that he has gotten pneumonia from aspirating food. He is nearly 100% functional compared to Terri.

Also, you, insert a straw man here. It isn't "we," or Mr. Schiavo, who have reached any conclusion. Rather, the conclusion, to the extent we can know it, was reached by Terri.

5. Brain death is not the issue here. Rather, it is the ability to make one's own moral decisions ahead of an event that completely forecloses voicing, or acting upon, those decisions.

Would you be having these same reservations had Terri documented her intent via a living will? If not, then your objection is based not on the situation, but on having to take Mr. Schiavo's word for what her intent was.

I dunno about that one entity business, David.

When I was in Iowa, we had a longrunning story about a 2-year-old whose father held his head underwater in a fishtank. He came out in about Terri Schiavo's condition, though he did need a respirator.

The father's defender got the court to order that the respirator not be unhooked.

This went on for quite a while -- over a year -- until finally the nurses refused to go into the room any more because the body was decaying, though still maintaining some functions, blood circulation and so on.

As a materialist who thinks mentation is what makes us human, I'm OK with the idea that 'I' and 'you' are defined by the higher functions of our brains.

You may subscribe to one of those religions that places this function in the liver or belly.

This does raise a bit of a question about liver transplants. Who comes out of the operating room?

The doctor.